What was the first number?

[Universal Mind]

Was there a first number or group of numbers, did they all come into existence simultaneously, or have all of them always existed? Are there other possibilities to consider?

[Carôusoul]

Well with the concept of any number, all others are neccessary. Its one big tautology is mathematics, don't ya know.

[tkdyo]

I thought I recall reading that india had the first real numbers system. too busy to look it up right now tho

[Universal Mind]

I thought I recall reading that india had the first real numbers system. too busy to look it up right now tho I'm not talking about the symbols. I'm talking about what the symbols represent.

[drewmandan]

Was there a first number or group of numbers, did they all come into existence simultaneously, or have all of them always existed? Are there other possibilities to consider? My guess would be that the first number was the number "1", used to describe having just above "none" of something.

[Xei]

I'd say different. The idea of 1 on its own serves no purpose at all. I think the natural numbers would have all been developed simultaneously. Most likely they would have been a small set at first; I'd hazard a fairly certain guess at 10 (a different word for each finger). The concept of numbers of numbers (such as ten tens, as is used in our modern number system) probably came quite a bit later. Negatives and rationals would have come next, although it's hard to say in which order. Some of the reals probably came after that (root 2 or pi first)... 0 came quite a bit later. Then e. After that there were the imaginary and complex numbers, probably on the same day. After that came quaternions, finishing with the development of group theory and the generalisation of the concept of number.

[Universal Mind]

I'd say different. The idea of 1 on its own serves no purpose at all. I think the natural numbers would have all been developed simultaneously. Most likely they would have been a small set at first; I'd hazard a fairly certain guess at 10 (a different word for each finger). The concept of numbers of numbers (such as ten tens, as is used in our modern number system) probably came quite a bit later. Negatives and rationals would have come next, although it's hard to say in which order. Some of the reals probably came after that (root 2 or pi first)... 0 came quite a bit later. Then e. After that there were the imaginary and complex numbers, probably on the same day. After that came quaternions, finishing with the development of group theory and the generalisation of the concept of number. Remember... I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about what the symbols represent.

[Mes Tarrant]

What exactly do you have in mind in terms of what the symbols represent? My first inclination is to declare that numbers don't exist in the first place.

[O'nus]

Was there a first number or group of numbers, did they all come into existence simultaneously, or have all of them always existed? Are there other possibilities to consider? Are you not reaching for an epistemological debate over the existence of numbers vs semantics? Numbers are used to represent things. Are you saying that "numbers" exist independently of variable representation? ~

[Xei]

Remember... I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about what the symbols represent. Numbers are symbols. They represent a quality of a group of objects. The only question with any sort of meaning related to yours is 'which was the first number which could be correctly applied in the history of the universe to a group of objects'. There is no real answer to this, you could assign all sorts of numbers to different qualities of the beginning of the universe. The groups of objects which numbers describe are real. The numbers themselves are not real (real in a physical sense, not technical mathematical sense).

[Universal Mind]

What exactly do you have in mind in terms of what the symbols represent? My first inclination is to declare that numbers don't exist in the first place. This is where I say, "Why didn't they just make pi = 3? Or 1 for that matter? It would be so much easier to use." The realities of how many things there are in a given category exist independently of human language. So far, you have left 1 post in this thread. There are all kinds of things we can call that number, but it is what it is. By they way, hello again. I haven't talked to you in forever, but I keep seeing you in the distance in the hallway. Now here I am and there you are, so... Are you not reaching for an epistemological debate over the existence of numbers vs semantics? Numbers are used to represent things. Are you saying that "numbers" exist independently of variable representation? No, I don't want that debate. I just wanted to clarify. But it looks like that debate is inevitable. The number of fingers you have on your right hand is what it is, but we Western humans call it "5" and "five" and "5.00000" and stuff. Without us, it still is what it is. (If you have fewer than five fingers, I apologize.)

[drewmandan]

UM, the question you're trying to ask is as meaningless as asking what's north of the north pole.

[Universal Mind]

UM, the question you're trying to ask is as meaningless as asking what's north of the north pole. Why? Because numbers are nothing more than bizarre things that humans made up? Why didn't they just make pi = 1?

[drewmandan]

Why? Because numbers are nothing more than bizarre things that humans made up? Why didn't they just make pi = 1? pi does equal 1 in some spacetime geometries.

[Universal Mind]

pi does equal 1 in some spacetime geometries. Well, in our space-time geometry, why don't we just make pi = 1? Or will it still be the case that the circumference of a circle is 3.14... times its diameter in every single case?

[drewmandan]

Well, in our space-time geometry, why don't we just make pi = 1? Or will it still be the case that the circumference of a circle is 3.14... times its diameter in every single case? Sure. That doesn't mean it's a number. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe that some numbers "came first". Why couldn't they have all appeared simultaneously?

[Bearsy]

Do you mean the concept of having "none, more than none, many, all"?

[Universal Mind]

Sure. That doesn't mean it's a number. What is it? And even if it was, there's no reason to believe that some numbers "came first". Why couldn't they have all appeared simultaneously? My original post: Was there a first number or group of numbers, did they all come into existence simultaneously, or have all of them always existed? Are there other possibilities to consider? Do you mean the concept of having "none, more than none, many, all"? What you talkin' about, Willis?

[really]

Who knows. What was the number 1 number? lol

[drewmandan]

What is it? It's the geometry of a circle.

[Universal Mind]

It's the geometry of a circle. So, the geometry of a circle is whatever we decide it is? Use Photoshop or Paint or something to show me a circle with a circumference that is 1 diametric unit. Or, are you pretty much stuck with 3.1415926blahblahblah?

[Xaqaria]

I'm not talking about the symbols. I'm talking about what the symbols represent. What do the symbols represent?

[Universal Mind]

What do the symbols represent? How many diameters worth of length a circumference is, for one thing. The symbols can represent how many fingers you have on a hand, how many times Earth has been around the sun since you were born, and how many posts are in this thread. Those realities are what they are. Humans just come up with symbols to represent those realities.

[Xaqaria]

How many diameters worth of length a circumference is, for one thing. The symbols can represent how many fingers you have on a hand, how many times Earth has been around the sun since you were born, and how many posts are in this thread. Those realities are what they are. Humans just come up with symbols to represent those realities. So the numbers come into existence as soon as we create the concept of things to count.

[The Cusp]

One and Two probably came into existence at the same time. The concept of being singular is pretty meaningless without a plurality to compare it to.